Life’s Latest Little Irony: Peace-loving Lefties Wish Palin Dead.

If you’re a member of the TTAGencia, you’ve heard a lot lately about the outrage (Outrage, I say!) on the Left side of the aisle regarding who’s behind the Safeway Massacre in Arizona. The Left claims that Sarah Palin is to blame, due to her website map that used crosshairs to indicate which races the Tea Partiers were targeting in the recent midterm elections. They also blame the Tea Party, Conservative rhetoric, and anybody who doesn’t think in lock-step with them. But is that fair?

To hear liberals tell it, they are a peace-loving clan, being against all things evil: anti-war, anti-violence, anti-guns, anti-fossil-fuels, anti-pollution, anti-rich – in the words of a Grouch Marx song, when it comes to these Marxists, “Whatever It Is, I’m Against It!”

Of course, it doesn’t take long for Hypocrisy’s ugly head to rear, in situations such as this. And it you want to be realistic, nobody’s cornered the market on hypocrisy. But, Lordy, how the Left do try. For instance out there in the Twitter badlands, a number of Progressive twits are tweeting terroristic-sounding twaddle, trying to tip the scales in favor of treating Sarah Palin to an assassin’s bullet.

You want The Truth About Twits? Here it is: The Left hates. A lot. They hate Palin, the Tea Party, Conservatives, and Anybody That Has the Gall To Disagree With Them. And the far left twits want them dead. And they are not afraid to say so, publicly. But here’s the scary part. The mainstream media is so blinded by bias that they are unable to see this for what it is: hypocrisy.

You see, the meme-du-jour of the left is that this shooting MUST be the fault of the right. In the study of logic, this is referred to as the “Don’t Confuse Me With Facts…I’ve Got a Good Theory Going” gambit. Is the shooter a Conservative? Nope. Is he a Palinista? Not a chance? A Neo-Con? No…he self-identifies as a Liberal/Progressive. Is he a member of the Tea Party? No way. So by the Logic of the Left, it MUST be Palin’s/The Tea Party’s/Conservatives’ fault. (Don’t confuse them with facts.) And of course Something Must Be Done. So they immediately jump to the idea “Lets Assasinate Palin.”

Never mind that the whole “USA Map with Crosshair Icons to Indicate Which Races We are Targeting” thing originated not with Conservative Sarah Palin, but with Democrat operative Bob Beckel. Forget that Palin/Tea Partiers/Conservatives have NEVER advocated violence as a response to the Left, nor has any Conservative gotten so much as a traffic ticket at a Tea Party rally. Nope. In the minds of the media, the people that cling to their God and their Guns must be at fault for this tragedy. So of course, it’s completely logical that the Lefties advocate a “What’s Sauce for the Goose” response.

Now, you’d think that somebody in the mainstream media might see this as just a wee bit ironic, wouldn’t you? And you’d be wrong. Wrong, WRONG, WRONG! Nope. They miss the hypocritical aspect of it, apparently unable to see around the log in their own eye. When the violence advocated by the left is pointed out to them, the MSM guys come back with “well, that’s just the Left’s quid pro quo response to the violence of the Right. It’s self-defense.” So the Right can’t catch a break. Even though they haven’t incited diddley-squat, the Left gets a free pass, because…well, because they are the Left.

So the next time you hear a story in the media about how the (agnostically) pious, peace-loving peoples of the Progressive Movment are advocating the assassination of Sarah Palin, to account for her complicity in the Giffords shooting, remember this. It’s the ones who wrap themselves in the flags of piety, peace, and progressive thought that have the most to hide themselves.

You can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a liberal who hasn’t publically expressed their fantasy ofDick Cheney suffering a gruesome death, so there’s no high ground here. Only hypocrites calling for a return to [non-existent] civil political discourse.

A high proportion of the population from both extremes on the political spectrum hates. I doubt you’re going to get more haters on the loony left than on the loony right. But Palin certainly gets jollies by riling people up, and it’s a damn shame she got the vp nomination, or she wouldn’t be heard outside of Alaska. More than anyone, she gives conservatives a bad name.

David, gotta disagree with you there. I’ve seen far more hate spewing from the left about the Tea Party than from the Tea Party. But I certainly agree with you that neither side has cornered the market on nutjobs.

Palin is, without a doubt, a polarizing figure in American politics. If you think back 20 years, though, so was Reagan. And they called him an idiot, too. Remember all the “Bedtime for Bonzo” jokes. Yet today, much of the country thinks of him (as do I) as one of our greatest Presidents of all time. I don’t think she gives Conservatives a bad name at all. And I’m not so sure that you should judge her quite so quickly. After all, much of what we know about her (as with any politician) is filtered through the lens of the mainstream media. And it’s pretty obvious to me that the MSM has a bad case of “We Hate Sarah” going. But it takes a lot of effort to get around the media gatekeepers and really learn what makes ANY politician tick, especially as, once you get past the MSM, the politicians have image crafters that work hard to present a view of the candidate that THEY want you to see.

Brad, That remark of yours is really hard to take. You expect us to believe that you’ve heard more hate from the left than from the right?

Anyway, about blaming Palin for those crosshairs, I’m beginning to change my opinion. I posted a video of Jon Stewart, a liberal who doesn’t spew hate, by the way, in which he suggested the Safeway Shooter was mainly just a nut. Others have said it too. One writer said it’s 90% nut factor and 10% rhetoric. But, what Jon Stewart went on to say is we souldn’t stop the exaggerated hate-speak because it’ll push some nut off the edge but because it’s wrong. It’s wrong to talk like that, so that’s why we shouldn’t do it.

If you want to read about someone who didn’t hate, who managed to get beyond that emotion, and treat everyone with respect, something which was instrumental in his rise to the presidency, read Doris Kearns Goodwin’s biography of Lincoln, “Team of Rivals.”

Murder is murder, no matter how many people have done it before the latest killer. And Palin’s biggest goal seems to be trying to stir up fear among her followers and anger among her opponents.

And Beckel does not exactly have the name recognition or the prominence that Palin does.

Regarding the comparison with Ronald Reagan, he had a vision for the country, which he calmly pursued without trying to rile up the masses. He had a good understanding of policy issues. Comparing Palin with Ronald Reagan does a huge disservice to the former President.

Frankly, Jerry, I think you’re correct (I was gonna say “right,” but we’ll avoid irony here). I really don’t like labels, because they tend to support an “us versus them” kind of thing. For instance, I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative, but there are many policies treasured by the GOP that I abhor. So am I a Republican? Nope, because that label has no meaning to me any more. When you paint things in stark terms, you lose the ability to see common ground. For instance, while I disagree with much of what Dan Baum supports, I respect his opinion, I agree with SOME of what he says, and I would defend to the death his right to say it (and to disagree with me).

One thing to remember…while we do our best to engage in thoughtful, reasonable debate here on TTAG, media-wise, we’re the exception to the rule. And there’s a reason for that. Bombast sells. The old media saying “If it doesn’t bleed, it doesn’t lead” is true. “Man Shoots Dog” is news. “Man Takes Dog for a Walk” isn’t. Sad, but true. The media exists to grab our attention, and extreme views capture attention.

The wrong way always seems the more reasonable. Should I acquisesce to a “reasonable” restriction upon my human rights? Just a little restriction, like a ten round magazine instead of a fifteen. or maybe making me close my businesses on a sabbath that isn’t mine. What’s the big deal? Or maybe I shouldn’t be allowed to write that I think that POTUS is a carnival tent preacher with delusions of adequacy. I’m sure I could phrase that in a more reasonable and civil way, even though it’s my honest opinion and I believe it to be true. And it certainly would have been more reasonable for Lincoln call off the most deadly war in American history before a half a million men were killed on the battlefield and probably twice that many civilians from starvation and disease. Right? Uh, no. I can do without that kind of reasonableness.

Personally I think everyone who is posting on the youtube’s video should be found and have their voting rights taken away. I am pretty sure once you reveal you are mentally ‘hindered’ you no longer have a say in the politics of anything.

O’reilly uses this tactic also. When attempting to find equivalency (on the left) of the rights hateful rhetoric… you point to personal comments posted by individuals on blogs and networking sites. Albeit, stupid, hateful and ignorant these comments do not compare to the “culture” that is created by constant propaganda on right wing radio and cable tv shows. You’re comparing apples and oranges.

What culture and what statements? It’s easy to make a sweeping condemnation with nothing to back it up. And if one broadcaster somewhere says something that you think is wrong, how can you attribute that statement to everyone else? And what’s wrong with propaganda? There’s nothing perjoritive about the word. Propaganda is communication designed to influence people toward some cause or position. That’s bad? That’s the definition of a campaign speech. The only propaganda you need to fear is government propaganda, since only the government has the power to cram it down your throat.

What culture and what statements???Really? You have to ask? “And if one broadcaster..”
It’s not “one broadcaster” when everyone from boehner to Larry King use the same
language and terms. According to your idea of propaganda… there is nothing wrong with
it when it is used to sell me a car. But when it is used to convince that our current govt is
out to get me, that is where I draw the line. Sorry to tell you but repub propaganda is govt
propaganda. Read up on pre WWII Germany and how propaganda was used to raise Hitler
to power. Not all Germans bought it. But enough of them bought it hook line and sinker. What
side would you have been on? P.S. No one has the power to cram ideas down your throat
if you have your own.

Frankly, I thought I was pretty thorough. But furthermore, not only can govt (big, bad, boogeyman govt) cram propaganda down your throat, but also business interests who engineer consent for their own self serving interests. Ring any bells? Anyway, in regards to the article, I think blaming Palin and the rights rhetoric is at best irresponsible at this point and I think the left may end up with egg on their face. There simply is no evidence. Unlike the cases that have been linked to Glenn Beck directly or the couple of cases where cops have been killed because “they are coming to get my guns”.